The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you? Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

I absolutely can't tell you the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. But I can tell you why it doesn't matter. In terms of climate data, the temperature of individual days do not matter. What is important is the average temperature over a long period of time. We can reconstruct that from various sources to give us an accurate view of the climate over a very long period of time, along with other important and related data like the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. These methods are accurate, they just don't have a day by day resolution.

So why we talk about the day by day stuff like the record high temperatures in Death Valley, or Australia's heat wave isn't because it proves global warming, it's because it is first hand and real time results that are consistent with global warming.

The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you? Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

We only have reliable data so far in the past you know. No one was manning weather stations in 921 AD.

The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

TheSwissNavy:Clever...for 15 years the rate of warming has been > 0, BUT INFINITESIMAL.

If u dont see the stastical trick u r a fool. I mean, clearlyyy the solution is 100% UN Fascism.

It's funny. Those of us who get our science from scientists are suggesting that people try and conserve, reduce pollution, reduce dependance on middle east oil, participate in the profitable green energy industry, try to shift our energy production to greener sources, etc. Stuff like that.

But people who get their science from politicians claim the ridiculous strawman that you have above. We for some reason want to give the UN world domination. It is idiotic ... but you puppets endlessly parrot it.

It is like the other lie that gets parroted - that we want to introduce "economy destroying" measures. Who believes this drivel? Who actually wants to destroy their own economy and what government would actually implement measures like this?

And then there's the Big Bad UN. Most Fark threads the UN is portrayed as a completely ineffective organization that can only send "strongly worded letters". But in AGW threads they are evil masterminds bent on WORLD DOMINATION. Muh huh ha ha ha ha.

The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you? Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

Kirzania:Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

Grungehamster:But don't you see if we decide to set 1997/1998 as the baseline it suddenly proves there is no global warming? I've been assured that it does.

It doesn't prove anything, but a good scientist should take into account all information, not just those data points that support his original hypothesis. Why temperatures have leveled off after 1997/98 despite the increase in CO2 emissions is a valid question, that a lot of scientists aparently want to ignore. The article, by picking picking comparisons that would mask this phenomenon seems to skirt this issue, so to me, it is more a poltical piece than genuine science.

DesertDemonWY:Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

I like that there's very specific origins for all those predictive models but then for the so-called "hard data" he just goes "Oh some sattelites and balloons. Which ones? Don't ask questions! Buy my book!"

genner:The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

Nope. The only reason people distrust the scientific method is because morons don't like it when someone points out the facts show they are wrong. A scientist who could clearly show global warming wasn't happening would be an instant celebrity and get tons of money from the business interests that already invest money in denier campaigns.

genner:Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

DEEEEEERRRPPPPPPP.

Yeah, sweetie, there's just a TON of research money devoted to proving global warming. Everywhere I look, I see climatologists in Ferraris, graduate students with gold encrusted diamond suits. It's not that this is what the research shows, except for research conducted bypoil and coal companies.

Cap and trade is BS. If you want to reduce smoking, you raise cigarette taxes. If you want to reduce gasoline consumption you raise gasoline taxes. If you want to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions you raise taxes on carbon-dioxide emissions.

Cap and trade is literally out of the Ayn Rand villain playbook. You grandfather the current emitters by capping them and then grating them emissions based on that cap. Existing coal burning industries get a big bundle of free emissions based on what they produce and startups based on say Natural Gas are forced to pay extra because they didn't exist.

A straight up CO2 emissions tax of $10 per ton or CO2 would raise about 50 billion in revenue at 2012 emissions levels and encourage a switch to other technologies.

To a degree (pardon the pun), yes. As the deniers like to preach, over and over, the climate has always been changing and we have always adapted.

The issue here is the rate of change. Adapting requires fast action and will costs huge money (much more than avoiding the problem would have). Some coastal cities are already committing billions of dollars to combat rising sea levels and the massive storm surges from deadlier storms. Other cities will not be able to build these defenses due to time or money constraints and they will suffer.

Climates are shifting so fast that species of plants and animals cannot migrate with them ... many are going extinct. If food production shifts north then we run into the problem that there is no soil on the Canadian shield ... it may get warm enough to grow but good luck growing anything there.

The fact is that those that can adapt will ... but the costs will be staggering. Those that cannot will suffer and there will be large losses of life.

I agree with those that believe that we've gone too far to avoid some serious impact. Making changes now may reduce the impact in the long term and likely shorten the duration so there are still good reasons to clean things up. But the deniers have had enough of an impact with their "Do Nothing!" movement that there will be pain.

jst3p:Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

WelldeadLink:Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

Based on the "work" of Willis Eschenbach.

Willis Eschenbach, blogger with a certificate in massage and a B.A. in Psychology. Has worked recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. Has produced no peer-reviewed papers on climate science according to the criteria set by Skeptical Science.

Confabulat:If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

Climate Scientists are unaware that the sun heats up the earth.Climate Scientists don't know that you supposed to normalize data.Climate Scientists "fudge" the numbers because they normalize the data. (I have had the same person argue both of those. That they are wrong because they normalize data and because they don't)Since Climate change can happen naturally it's impossible for climate change to be caused by man. (Just like fires can be cause by nature therefore can be caused by man)Until Climate Science is 100% proven (which nothing is ever really 100% proven) we should do nothing.We don't understand fully how climate change works with weather 100% therefor it can't exist. (We understand how climate change works more than thing like gravity. Should we say gravity doesn't exist because we don't understand it?)

These arguments are not logical. They are not making logical arguments.

A logical argument would look like: Here is something else that has more evidence and data to support the change in global temperature...

They don't do this. Why? Because they don't have anything. All they have is FUD not a better hypothesis you are just trying to cloud the issue. Scare tactics of paranoid delusions of the UN sending UN troops to arrest you for driving your car. (funny how they tell us the UN does nothing except send letter except when they want to scare you.)

If you have better science then SHOW IT. But so far it's all just throwing FUD around.

ikanreed:I concede my ignorance. Regardless there's a ton of cherrypicking going on. There's a ton of observational data available, and intentionally limiting your comparison to a subset is always going to reflect a bias. Still, focusing on the upper atmosphere when the biggest changes are going on with surface and ocean temperatures is deceptive as hell.

I see you're unfamiliar with Roy Spencer and his previous "accomplishments". Over the last decade or so, he has repeatedly modified his views and how he derives them in order to continue to claim that Anthropogenic Climate Change is fake.

He's also a Creationist. He's had to resort to "publishing" in non-peer review places, because he couldn't pass peer review. One of his papers that squeaked by peer review was in a geophysical journal, and was so bad that the editor in chief resigned over it.

His credentials on the subject are real, anything from his website is highly suspect, and generally able to be dismissed out of hand.

Corvus:Now, ice cores show that it's entirely likely that this is the worst warming in history (well, I guess the heavy volcanic period of proto-Earth might have been more significant), so I think he's wrong, but he doesn't have to be lying to say what he said. I don't like how people ascribe motives to comments when they are not there, when he says something about denying man-made global warming, yell away, but don't fight about what you think he meant when what he said is right in front of you, that's just silly.

It's not just about the temperature but it's that this is the fastest rate of change. Normal temperature fluctuations like this that occurred naturally in the past happened over hundreds of years, not decades. That's a very big difference to ecosystems and it also is a big hint that this is man's involvement.

Actually, we do have an example of a sudden dump of a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, which warmed the planet a big, which caused the sea floors and tundra to release all of their stored methane, which warmed the planet a LOT. It's called the Eocene Extinction Event, and I guess since it has happened once before, the right wing is OK with it happening again.

Corvus:DesertDemonWY: The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta

I gave your 4 specific examples showing the IPCC predictions where more conservative then actually occurred (I have many many more) and your response is "Well I am just going to ignore that because I don't want to believe it".

The guy is an outright liar and a bad person. I'm not convinced he's a paid shill, but he's definitely intellectually dishonest. Say one thing, ignore the fact that it's wrong.

ikanreed:I concede my ignorance. Regardless there's a ton of cherrypicking going on. There's a ton of observational data available, and intentionally limiting your comparison to a subset is always going to reflect a bias. Still, focusing on the upper atmosphere when the biggest changes are going on with surface and ocean temperatures is deceptive as hell.

If there's one thing that's certain, it's that Roy Spencer has a history of quick and shoddy analysis.

No, Spencer is comparing tropospheric observations with tropospheric predictions. In a narrow latitude band in the tropics, where the models are known differ from observations more strongly than elsewhere in the world; it is unknown whether this is a problem with the models, the data, or both. The radiosondes in particular are suspected to have strong systematic biases, but there's evidence that surface temperature in the models is also biased. (This doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong, actually; it could be due to the fact that they're not initialized with ocean heat observations; that's a separate issue under debate.) Note that Spencer averaged together a bunch of observational data sets whose trends differ greatly, masking the observational uncertainty; the competing RSS data set has a 3x larger trend than his own UAH data set. Furthermore, the UAH "tropospheric" measurements are biased low, because they actually include part of the stratosphere, which is cooling (and is predicted to cool by models).

The data supporting the slowdown in global warming has been recorded since then, thus the whole "notion among some in the scientific community of a slowdown, or lull".

I love that the article pretends entirely that years 2011 & 2012 didn't happen. Wake the fark up you alarmist pieces of shiat.

Oh, so only being a degree higher than the average of the 90s totally invalidates global warming, since it's cooler than 2010. Your scientific genius has been demonstrated again, person who probably went to the same college as me but didn't seem to learn anything.

DesertDemonWY:DoctorWhat: DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Where's that data coming from? None of the graphs on the NASA page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ don't look a damn thing like it. Actually they look quite a bit like the models you plotted...

Oh, so he's comparing tropospheric observation with surface predictions. Look at what those datasets measure, versus what they are being compared to. One of these things is not like the other one, one of these things is not the same.

As someone who thinks that the potential economic damage of climate change will far far exceed the economic costs of addressing it, I have to agree. Pretending there aren't costs isn't good. It makes you seem like a wide-eyed idealist and not someone with a firm grasp of the issue.

Mikey1969:boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.

I complained about the heat, you told me to move out of the desert. I showed you that "desert" has nothing to do with "heat", and you think your point still stands? WOW...

It's almost like you probably KNEW that he meant you're an idiot to live in what is commonly known as the hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert") and continue to biatch about the heat but just felt like being a dick about it.

Hey look it's this lie again, that doesn't site sources. And it is a lie. Stop lying, please.Doesn't it make you feel any shame at all that you go to biased sources, don't check data, and put outright fabrications under your name? Do you care?

DesertDemonWY:Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

genner:Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

As a scientist and card carrying member of the American Geophysical Union, I'm getting a kick out of your comments.

Do you know how to make your name, in a good way, as a politician? Get elected year after year? Proudly proclaim a viewpoint that people with votes and/or money (preferably both) want to hear. Shovel money to your constituency. Determining facts and truth are more or less irrelevant.

Do you know how you make your name as a scientist? Get a guaranteed job for life? Overturning the orthodoxy. There is no scientific debate on global warming, it is almost as thoroughly accepted amongst climate scientists as classical mechanics classical E&M (Maxwell's equations) were in the 19th century. (I say "almost" because while I am aware of polls amongst climate scientists in which 99% accept anthropogenic global warming, and 1% did not respond. I am unaware of any such polls on classical mechanics in the 19th century and I assume it was 100% accepted.) Einstein and Bohr made their names by overthrowing the orthodoxy and explaining previously unexplained data with new theories. So far, there is no unexplained data for climate scientists to use to overthrow global warming and create new theories. Every measurement, every model refinement, every new understanding of important details like how clouds affect warming has strengthened the case for anthropogenic global warming.

Now excuse me while I get back to my plans for destroying the economy, so I can, er, um,... Ur, no, so my kids, can, um, aw geez, I haven't been thinking far enough ahead to figure that out yet. Must be my continually breaking out in maniacal laughter.

DesertDemonWY:Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Example number 4:

Projection: In the 2001 report, the IPCC projected a sea rise of 2 millimeters per year. The worst-case scenario in the 2007 report, which looked mostly at thermal expansion of the oceans as temperatures warmed, called for up to 1.9 feet of sea-level-rise by century's end.

Today: Observed sea-level-rise has averaged 3.3 millimeters per year since 1990. By 2009, various studies that included ice-melt offered drastically higher projections of between 2.4 and 6.2 feet sea level rise by 2100.

Confabulat:I swear, global warming deniers think the universe is run by magic or something.

It is the refrain of conspiracy theorists everywhere - if there is one tiny part of something they don't understand, that disproves the whole thing. Even if there are a thousand websites that clearly explain it, as long as they avoid going there they can believe whatever they like based on their own ignorance - look at moon landing hoaxers, they know some random fact about there being no wind on the moon, and they see a flag moving, therefore the entire thing is a hoax, never mind that things can move for reasons other than wind, or how the US convinced the USSR to go along with it. Equally the idea that uniquely climate scientists are perpetrating a massive hoax, while the real truth is funded by oil companies just trying to fight this corruption out of the goodness of their hearts, is just so mindbogglingly stupid it beggar's belief there are more than a handful of cranks that will accept it.

The United States government can't track people with expired Visas. How am I supposed to believe that in their infinite wisdom they can track global warming(oh wait its "climate change" now) trends with any degree of accuracy or truth? Didn't the "tree ring" theory debunk years worth of feigned altruism in the English climate science community? How do we know it was colder in 1865 than it is now? Great Great Grandpa's diary entries about his trick knee?

netizencain:I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

same here. i don't think many people deny that the cont'd destruction of the planet is contributing to global warming, but, at the same time, it has become such a polarizing issue that it's hard to have a conversation about. you know, kind of like...religion.

DesertDemonWY:Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Here is more:

Projection: The IPCC has always confidently projected that the Arctic ice pack was safe at least until 2050 or well beyond 2100.

Reality: Summer ice is thinning faster than every climate projection, and today scientists predict an ice-free Arctic in years, not decades. Last summer, Arctic sea ice extent plummeted to 1.32 million square miles, the lowest level ever recorded - 50 percent below the long-term 1979 to 2000 average.

The IPCC so far has been mostly wrong on the side of them saying effects would not be so bad.

WelldeadLink:Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

Your graph is the derivative of the effect--degrees additional warming per additional 20ppm CO2--so that you can show it going down. If the graph were showing the warming effect as a function of CO2 concentration, it would continue to slope up to the right, just not as steeply as at the beginning.

Also, why a bar graph? A simple line would be so much easier on the eye, and is the "honest" way to display something that is supposed to be a function of the variable on the X axis.

May 2nd I got 16 inches of snow (normally does not snow more than 1-2" all month) 10 days later it was 97 but on average it has been a cooler wetter year than last year. The year before that was middle of the road but wetter, and the year before that was warmer and wetter. 2 Billion years ago the surface was lava.

The moral of the story is statistics can be massaged to create any outcome you want.

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.

And keep in mind that the warming you're talking about taking 12,000 years is going to be more than matched in 150 by CH4 and CO2. Orders of magnitude matter, not just "is there change?"

WelldeadLink:Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

IlGreven:You wouldn't have even brought up this argument if you didn't. Stop lying.

That's not true, you can absolutely agree with the message conveyed, and still take issue with the way it was conveyed. I think what he's saying we don't have records for all of history, so why not just say "worst warming in recorded history?" Now, ice cores show that it's entirely likely that this is the worst warming in history (well, I guess the heavy volcanic period of proto-Earth might have been more significant), so I think he's wrong, but he doesn't have to be lying to say what he said. I don't like how people ascribe motives to comments when they are not there, when he says something about denying man-made global warming, yell away, but don't fight about what you think he meant when what he said is right in front of you, that's just silly.

The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you? Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

You are the one who seems to be confusing weather with climate. Scientists can, in fact, go to certain areas and infer the average temperature over about a years time. Naturally they can't tell you the temp on 7/1/921, because that's weather, which is a very turbulent model.

HighZoolander:Kirzania: Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.

While I believe in climate change, you can't deny that it's possibly a natural cycle. There is no definitive proof. I mean the earth has warmed and cooled many times.

not collecting stamps:And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!

I see, so it's perfectly acceptable to fark up the planet so it results in the deaths of billions of people? Not that I think that's what's going to happen, but you just explicitly stated that that scenario is fine with you. That may have been a troll but a lot of people say this in reality. The old "we can't destroy the planet, we may die but the world will live on..." Well that's super, but I don't know about you but I want my kids and grandkids to have somewhere to live, and not in Mad Max ways. It's a stupid argument, so everyone needs to stop using it.

We could probably put every nuclear device around where detonating them all at once would cause the most damage. That might kill billions, is that ok just because the world will survive, and life will slowly recover? I don't think so.

WelldeadLink:Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

...Anthony Watts does not accept the basic physics. That's why he makes bullshiat graphs like this one.

The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you? Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

I agree brother 100%.

I'll look forward to us both now being called luddite religious fanatic retards.

No, more like pedantic assholes. Most people have an inherent understanding of the time scales that these statement implicitly apply to and those who care find the scientific data and testable hypotheses used to extend temperature estimates back further interesting and scientifically (ie, formed and tested by collected data) compelling.

Kirzania:Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.

Oh, look. Another article clearly biased on climate change. T minus 2 days before a conflicting article comes out to disprove it. There are absolutely 0 people opposed to conserving energy, finding renewable energy, and furthering our research and technology. Climate change could have been about the science, but then politics had to get involved and suddenly it's about evil corporations, paid shills, ignorant people with no scientific knowledge having strong opinions about it and yada yada yada....

/This isn't what "political science" means guys...//Waiting for natural selection to be reinstated.

The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you? Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

We only have reliable data so far in the past you know. No one was manning weather stations in 921 AD.

The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

What do I think will happen? Trees will use the CO2 to produce more oxygen and grow. When trees get bigger, they create more shade, which is a good thing. And we'll all be more alert because there's more oxygen. Thus proving global warming is a farce.

Cool! Can we please see your research and calculations? Because then we can all stop worrying about it. But I am definitely happy that you thought of this, because I'm sure no other climate scientists have ever even considered it.

The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you? Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

You wouldn't have even brought up this argument if you didn't. Stop lying.

not collecting stamps:Ahh, the church of global warming climate change (is that still what we are calling it this week?). And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!

You probably argue that it's OK for everybody to poop in the public swimming pool. It's misguided and narcissistic to think we can impact the swimming pool. The pool will be fine. After all, animals and fish have been pooping in bodies of water since long before humans came on the scene and we still have water, don't we?

/I know it's a troll but how often do you get to talk about pooping in the swimming pool?

Farking Canuck:It's funny. Those of us who get our science from scientists are suggesting that people try and conserve, reduce pollution, reduce dependance on middle east oil, participate in the profitable green energy industry, try to shift our energy production to greener sources, etc. Stuff like that.

But people who get their science from politicians claim the ridiculous strawman that you have above. We for some reason want to give the UN world domination. It is idiotic ... but you puppets endlessly parrot it.

It is like the other lie that gets parroted - that we want to introduce "economy destroying" measures. Who believes this drivel? Who actually wants to destroy their own economy and what government would actually implement measures like this?

And then there's the Big Bad UN. Most Fark threads the UN is portrayed as a completely ineffective organization that can only send "strongly worded letters". But in AGW threads they are evil masterminds bent on WORLD DOMINATION. Muh huh ha ha ha ha.

jst3p:Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?

Oh well, I guess if your only consideration is "will humanity adapt," I'm sure as a species we will, so will the raccoons and rats and crows and roaches.

But, we'll suffer through mass extinctions of many species, probably many many wars over resources as weather patterns change, famines, disease, revolutions, that sort of stuff. Check out what the CIA has to say about it. I mean, hell, we could just go full-bore nuclear right now and eliminate all emissions, but that would take twenty years if we started now, but that ain't gonna happen until Really Bad Things start happening more frequently, and there are obviously some issues about nuclear.

Confabulat:The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

not collecting stamps:Ahh, the church of global warming climate change (is that still what we are calling it this week?). And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!

I think you're being purposely obtuse. By 'break the planet' people mean 'make the planet unihabitable for animal and plant life', not that the planet itself will crumble. No one really gives a shiat what happens to this rock if all of us are dead.

...going back to 1880, the average increase was .062 percent degrees Celsius per decade. Average temperatures were 0.21 degrees Celsius warmer this past decade than from 1991 to 2000which were in turn 0.14 degrees Celsius warmer than from 1981 to 1990.

The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you? Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

I agree brother 100%.

I'll look forward to us both now being called luddite religious fanatic retards.